Theosis and the Doctrine of the Deification of Man
Those who believe in the deification of man are often accused of being "un-Christian" or polytheists. Critics point out how arrogant it is to think one could supplant God, and allege a lack of biblical foundation for the belief. This sort of exclusion from the ranks of Christianity is prevalent in works such as Ed Decker’s The Godmakers or Walter Martin’s Kingdom of the Cults, but is it justified in Christian tradition or scripture?
Far from it.
Rather, the confusion and exclusion seem to stem from an issue of doctrine and definition confusion, specifically concerning the terms "God" and "god" – representing the God of worship and the human potential, respectively. Many Catholics or Protestants have an existing view of the former in their belief set, but this is where the concept of divinity ends. They may believe mankind has the ability to attain a higher degree of existence after death, but they do not apply the word "god" to such a status – and this is precisely what differentiates them from religions such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the Eastern Orthodox Church. The doctrine of the deification of man, however, cannot be understood by applying internal definitions to an external concept; things need to be kept "in-house" in a doctrinal sense.
If we were to apply this advice and continue the example of the LDS Church, it is interesting to consider that Latter-day Saints claim to believe in only one God – at the same time they accept the doctrine of the deification of man. To quote Elder Boyd K. Packer, one of the current members of the LDS Quorum of the Twelve:
"The Father is the one true God=. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Elohim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him."
This view is, of course, similar to the view of many Catholics and Protestants – close enough, in fact, that I am confident many of them would view it as incompatible with what they understand to be Mormonism’s attempt to "dethrone God" via human deification. On the contrary, however, there is no reason such doctrine would imply the worship of anyone but God the Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ. Human deification is not the supplanting of the existing God, but the fulfillment of what is seen as man’s potential to become holy and one with Christ – a belief commonly known as theosis.
Many modern "popular" Christians would be surprised to find theosis was actually a rampant belief in the early Christian Church (i.e., directly following Christ’s ministry) as demonstrated in the statements of early Christian scholars such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Athanasius of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo, Jerome, and others. This has led many Christian scholars to recognize the doctrine of human deification as actually being closer to the ancient Church than prevalent modern views. Ernst Benz, for example, stated the following concerning the Latter-day Saints: "One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin.
Although some may be quick to point out the existence of external influences on the early church (e.g., Middle Platonic and Gnostic beliefs, Greek and Roman emperors, etc.), there is more than enough evidence to demonstrate an independent theosis in the Judaeo/Christian tradition not necessarily manipulated by these.
Additionally, theosis is supported biblically., although there are always interpretation issues in such claims. Granted, within the context of creeds and tradition, Protestants and Catholics will view the claimed biblical support for theosis differently, but such is beside the point. The issue here is not to "disprove" different interpretations but to show there is sufficient biblical framework to understand how those attempting to follow Christ before or without the creeds were/are able to embrace the doctrine of theosis.
Given the history of theosis in the Judaeo/Christian tradition and scripture, there is obvious room for the doctrine of the deification of man within the bounds of Christianity – no matter how odd this may seem within the prevalent modern views.
Similarly tagged OmniNerd content:
- Vatican Says Aliens Are Cool, by VnutZ about 5 years ago
- Iranian Movie About Jesus, by VnutZ about 5 years ago
- Darth Vader Assaults Jedis, by VnutZ about 5 years ago
- American Prude Awakening, by VnutZ about 5 years ago


Print Friendly
Write an Article
Thought Provoking by Travis
I thought that this was an interesting and thought provoking article that left me wanting more from you. I know that this was intended to be a short piece, however a bit more elaboration of a few points would bring beautiful closer to the article; such as a few "in house" definitions and examples of deification of man from different religious groups and how they use biblical support.
At any rate, well done for taking the time to stir the pot and create some individual thinking!
Theosis is misrepresented by Anonymous
The Eastern Orthodox belief that we are meant to become like God which is called Theosis is not at all like the Mormon doctrine of progressive deification. Theosis does not mean that we become gods or Gods, but that we restore the condition of our soul to the image and likeness of God that we had at creation, before The Fall. Orthodox Christians understand that Christ, who was fully man and fully God, came in the flesh to show us that we could restore that pure, original image through humility, prayer, fasting, communion with God through the Mysteries, repentence, "metanoia" or changing our minds to turn away from sin, and by seeing every person as Christ and treating each person accordingly. Christ set the goal of our lives in Him as achieving theosis while we are in the flesh, not after our death in the flesh. Those who have achieved theosis are recognized by those who come into contact with them: they are called "not of this world" or "agios," and are honored as those who are the victors, the ones who have finished the race, as St. Paul admonished us. Accordingly, the book of life is closed at our death in the flesh, and at judgment Christ will judge us according to what we did in our life time.
The Eastern Orthodox do not believe that we actually become a God, we are not co-creators with the Father, we do not populate additional planets with our progeny.
Beware of Accusing Someone Falsely by Anonymous
A great article. I have read the writings of the early Christian writers referred to in this article. They clearly teach the doctrine of the eternal progression of man and that earth is a period of probation to see if man will use his God-given agency to choose to keep the commandments of God or to choose another path. Many of today’s so-called "Christians" would accuse these early Christian scholars of being heretics and non-Christians. They place themselves much in the same position as the Jewish priests and scribes at the time of Christ, unwilling to accept that God, as He has so many times in the past, can reveal Himself to a prophet in their day, when necessary to correct doctrines that have become, over time, corrupted and in error. There have been a number of times throughout the history of mankind when God has been required to restore the true teachings – always through a prophet of His choosing – one raised up for that purpose.
Theosis is an interesting idea by scottb
I’ve always found the notion of theosis (or, more linguistically correctly apotheosis) to be one of the more intriguing ideas of religion. One of very few ideas that has any merit whatsoever.
I’m curious about the LDS traditions, though. As I understand it, LDS is a restorationist group – they believe that at some point in the early history of Christianity, the "true" teachings were lost, and that they have uniquely restored this "true" faith. Does the LDS church indicate exactly when this is supposed to have happened?
I ask, because during those early years, there was a very significant group of people who, like Christians, claimed to have originated their beliefs in Jewish scripture, but had recently uncovered a new kind of revelation. These were the Gnostics. By the middle of the second century, Gnostic groups stretched from Gaul to Mesopotamia.
A particularly significant group of Gnostics, with respect to early Christianity, were the Marcionites. Marcion originally joined the Christian community in Rome around 138 CE, but a few years later adopted gnostic ideas. He was expelled from the church as a heretic in 144 CE. He compiled a "canon" of documents that included an early version of the Gospel of Luke and ten of the Pauline epistles which he claimed supported his doctrines. This was probably quite instrumental in triggering the church to adopt its own canon of four gospels and thirteen Pauline epistles, and then to later supplement it with other apostolic letters, an extended version of Luke, and the creation of Acts.
I bring this all up because a central notion in gnosticism, generally, and specifically the Marcionite beliefs is the idea that humans (at least some of them) have a piece of divinity within them, and the point of revelation is to teach them how to reunite that piece of divinity with its source – their god. This is quite similar to apotheosis – instead of man achieving some exalted state, and becoming "like god", man is already part god, and must seek to re-connect.
The gnostics explained how this all came about – the specific details varied a bit from group to group and over time, but the general idea was that somehow, something went "wrong" in the divine world, which resulted in the creation of our world – an evil world, ruled by an evil god (the Demiurge). But as a side-effect of this wrongness, parts of the higher-level, "true" god, were trapped within the world. The role of the savior is to reveal to humans how to reconnect with the divine.
Groups like the Marcionites took this to mean that the god identified in Jewish scripture, Yahweh, was this evil Demiurge. This isn’t much of a stretch – an eight-year-old reading the old testament can easily recognize that the god it talks about isn’t "nice". But then the Marcionites added that Jesus was sent by a higher god, the "true" god, to help recover the missing parts.
There are a lot of different places where these ideas crop up, and I’ll probably throw in a few more later, but let’s see where this one takes us.
On Apostasy and Q by davidcgore
This post is very interesting, as are the comments. I might inject that the LDS have no official position on "when" the apostasy occured that I know of, only how – which, without when, leaves much open for reflection. Indeed, men like Origen, Eusebius, &c., may have had both the authority to act in God’s name and the power. (Indeed, Moroni lived 400 years after the death of NT apostles . . .) It is also common for LDS to emphasize the importance and inspiration of such men as William Tyndale or Martin Luther and other reformists. Indeed, I, for one, feel a strong kinship between my "Mormonism" and dissenters and non-conformists like William Blake and John Bunyan. I would certainly characterize Joseph Smith as a non-conformist and Christian dissenter. Anyway, despite the apostasy, LDS do not believe that God ever washed his hands of history. His hand, on the contrary, is in all things.
As for comments on Q, the Early Church, &c., I can strongly recommend Donald Harman Akenson’s two volumes, Surpassing Wonder: The Invention of the Bible and the Talmuds and Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus . . . especially the Appendix, "Winnie-the-Pooh and the Jesus Seminar," which, as I remember, makes the way Q is used look like a historical farce. (Unfortunately, my copies of both books are at home today . . .) Let’s not forget Q is an invention, perhaps a helpful and useful one, but only if we don’t forget its an invention.
Oh yeah, and human deification by davidcgore
On human deification . . . it seems clear to me that people through all ages of time have believed something like the LDS on this point. The "divine spark" is strong among many Catholics, Gnostic Christians, Christian Gnostics, and even pagans like Cicero (The Dream of Scipio, especially), as well as early Judahists and Jews. The image and offspring of God . . .
The point that there is "obvious room for it," to me, is sound, but also that the room for it was more often on the margins or among dissenters and less rarely among the managers of churches and synagogues. That is, because the idea is so powerful it is also less manageable.
The truth! by Anonymous
God, please click and listen!
What about the first two Commandments by Occams
>>First
>>"I am The Lord your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me."
>>Second
>>"You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I The Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love Me and keep My Commandments."
The Jews and early christian Jews certainly believed and lived by these more than any of the other commandments. Does that not negate your whole case?